Time calls Donald Trump ‘President of the Divided States of America’

[Silurian]

2 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

6 minutes ago, 55Jay said:

Trump is Time's Man of the Year.  Ranks right up there with Obama's Nobel Peace Prize, which even he joked about recently as still not knowing why he was nominated and won it. 

 

Actually, it's not an endorsement.  In 1938 Time's Man of the Year was Adolf Hitler. In 1939 it was Joseph Stalin.

 

Along with "The Computer" in 1982 and "You" in 2006.

[55Jay]

1 hour ago, ilostmypassword said:

Actually, it's not an endorsement.  In 1938 Time's Man of the Year was Adolf Hitler. In 1939 it was Joseph Stalin.

I didn't say it was.  TIME themselves don't either.

[55Jay]

1 hour ago, Silurian said:

 

Along with "The Computer" in 1982 and "You" in 2006.

Precisely.  So, what's the big deal here? 

[Silurian]

2 minutes ago, 55Jay said:

Precisely.  So, what's the big deal here? 

 

Nothing apparently. Make of it what you will.

[Jingthing]

Detailed analysis of the Time cover as subversive political art. Fascinating!

 

Quote

 

Taken together, these elements add up to a profound portrayal of anxiety for the coming years. We have the implicit placement of Trump in the mid 1900’s (looking through the Time Magazine cover archives, no images really resemble this cover, save the one seen on the left [a purely visual comparison]). We have a suggestion of the scheming, sordid underside of power. We have the crumbling facade of wealth, which, like “The Picture of Dorian Gray” suggests more than just a physical deterioration.

As a photograph, it’s a rare achievement. As a cover, it’s a statement.

 

 

http://forward.com/culture/356537/why-times-trump-cover-is-a-subversive-work-of-political-art/?attribution=home-hero-item-text-1

[selftaopath]

On 12/8/2016 at 8:47 AM, NeverSure said:

 

Trump didn't win dirty. He outsmarted the not so smart Clinton, and he won by the rules. He targeted electoral votes which is what it takes to win. Recounts, court pleadings - he's still the winner.

 

Isn't even trying? The guy is doing more before inauguration than any president I can remember. He's seeing a surge in popularity unmatched by anyone since Reagan. You may recall that both Clinton and Trump suffered from high unfavorability ratings before the election.

 

You might get your head out of TVF and read the news once in a while?

 

 

Do you have the link to that?

[Silurian]

How about this poll?

 

As Trump prepares to take office, 41% say they approve of the job he has done explaining his plans and policies for the future of the American people, while 55% say they disapprove of the job Trump has done.

 

Pew poll: Trump's approval lower than previous incoming presidents

http://us.cnn.com/2016/12/08/politics/donald-trump-approval-ratings-pew-poll-transition/index.html

 

 

[Silurian]

Well now they aren't even trying to hide it. The RNC is basically handing money to Don the Prez.

 

The RNC Is Hosting Its Christmas Party This Year At Donald Trump’s Hotel

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/rnc-donald-trump-party_us_5848cf6ee4b0f9723d003c70

 

 

[captspectre]

On 12/8/2016 at 5:25 PM, sgtsabai said:

I think Scum of the Year would be more appropriate. The nation did become divided under Obama. It became divided because the racists and bigots couldn't stand seeing a black man in a White House and the soon to be fascist in chief won on racism, bigotry, misogynist, lies, demagoguery, and ignorant/stupid people that voted yet once again against their own future. Drain the swamp? No not by a long shot, fill it up with alligators of the worst kind. Racists, misogamists, climate deniers, lobbyists, Wall Street criminal/banksters, a crazy general. Oh yea, great people, NOT! No, he may not have single handedly divided this country, the Republican right wing teabaggers did that, but he played upon that divide and will cement it in place. The man is nothing but a con man intent on using the office of the president for his own personal gain and to hell with America. We have every right and in fact obligation to protest, object and stop each and everything he does. Hmmm kind of sounds like the Republican game plan against Obama, oh wait in fact that is a direct copy.

 

The orange fascist is not nor never will be my president.

there are so may things I could say to you, about your nasty rant, but all I will say is that I "hope" you are just as unhappy and bitter for the next eight years that I have been in the past eight years! if you are you will need to see a shrink!

[captspectre]

33 minutes ago, Silurian said:

Well now they aren't even trying to hide it. The RNC is basically handing money to Don the Prez.

 

The RNC Is Hosting Its Christmas Party This Year At Donald Trump’s Hotel

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/rnc-donald-trump-party_us_5848cf6ee4b0f9723d003c70

 

 

what's wrong with that? have you been there? do you know what it looks like? google it!

[Silurian]

33 minutes ago, captspectre said:

what's wrong with that? have you been there? do you know what it looks like? google it!

 

Um, I am not sure your point. What does the look of the hotel have to do with funds being funneled from the RNC to Don the Prez's pockets? I could care less what the hotel looks like.

[Morch]

20 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Sorry, I don't see how I can ever get over how he ran his campaign. Mussolini style rallies just aren't my thing. 

 

Just pointing out that going on about Trump dividing the country seems asinine, considering many of your posts.

[Jingthing]

 
Just pointing out that going on about Trump dividing the country seems asinine, considering many of your posts.

I see you're on my case now. Have you joined the trump train or something? Maybe it's like invasion of the body snatchers.

[Morch]

20 hours ago, lannarebirth said:

 

Is intolerance of indifference intolerance? Like the White Supemacists that settled in Northern Idaho. I don't agree with their ideology at all but as far as I know they are not as a group systematically breaking any laws. They have a right to their beliefs, right of association, right of travel, right to bear arms, etc. I don't spend much time thinking about them. I sometimes liken them to the Zionists that are settling in lands they stole. Only difference being the White Supremacists didn't steal their land. If you dislike both you're an anti-Semite. If you are indifferent to both recognizing you can't do anything about either group personally, you are a supporter of White Supremacists.

 

One of the reasons the Democrats lost is because they engage in too much hyperbole about things that anyone can see just aren't true. I remember how vicious you were during the last election towards Romney. By all accounts a decent enough man, but you cast vile aspersions on him simply because he was the "other one" and not your candidate of choice. That behavior elected Trump. Not White Supremacists, not the uneducated, but YOU and people like you. Your intolerance elected Trump. That's some irony, eh?

 

Not a whole lot of historical relevance (and even fact) in the suggested analogy. Hard to tell if it's just ignorance, or considering the poster replied to, the usual baiting attempt.

 

Some of the HRC camp's narrative and rhetoric certainly had to do with alienating and pushing away support. Whether it was the only, or even the main, factor in Trump's victory is probably less clear cut then you suggest.

 

But hey, can't bring divisions without laying blame, eh? And all the better if it can all be placed with "them".

[Morch]

1 minute ago, Jingthing said:

I see you're on my case now. Have you joined the trump train or something? Maybe it's like invasion of the body snatchers.

 

I'm not "on your case". I was never on board with the content and style of many posters opposing Trump. And sorry if I can't muster the expected enthusiasm with regard to the "resistance". Joining the Trump train? Never. It's sad when a supposedly pro-tolerance person cannot take criticism and disagreement but sees them as betrayal.

[Jingthing]

 
I'm not "on your case". I was never on board with the content and style of many posters opposing Trump. And sorry if I can't muster the expected enthusiasm with regard to the "resistance". Joining the Trump train? Never. It's sad when a supposedly pro-tolerance person cannot take criticism and disagreement but sees them as betrayal.

The U.S. is divided and you're neutral. How convenient. Switzerland has it's charms I suppose.

[lannarebirth]

18 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Not a whole lot of historical relevance (and even fact) in the suggested analogy. Hard to tell if it's just ignorance, or considering the poster replied to, the usual baiting attempt.

 

Some of the HRC camp's narrative and rhetoric certainly had to do with alienating and pushing away support. Whether it was the only, or even the main, factor in Trump's victory is probably less clear cut then you suggest.

 

But hey, can't bring divisions without laying blame, eh? And all the better if it can all be placed with "them".

 

I'm just calling it how I see it. Bear in mind these candidates are all "them" to me. I couldn't support either of them.  One is obviously a pathological liar and the other is corrupt.

 

I suppose I do like to poke at the Clinton side because I see them as almost wholly responsible for bringing about the outcome they find to be so catastrophic. And I'm not saying they're wrong in thinking it is a catastrophic outcome, I just wish they'd spend some time looking honestly at the reasons it has come to pass. All I see is a doubling down on the kind of thought processes and behavior that has led to their disappointment.

[Morch]

1 minute ago, Jingthing said:

The U.S. is divided and you're neutral. How convenient. Switzerland has it's charms I suppose.

 

It's nothing to do with being neutral, saying that is just another expression of "us" and "them" state of mind. Not sure how people can go on about "divisions" while preaching either with us or against us. And no, it is anything but convenient. Much easier to succumb to hate. And since this gets too personal let me end with an appropriate anecdote: at times, it feels that the effort involved with mending post election bridges between NY and TX branches of family is hopelessly depressing.

 

 

[Morch]

12 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

I'm just calling it how I see it. Bear in mind these candidates are all "them" to me. I couldn't support either of them.  One is obviously a pathological liar and the other is corrupt.

 

I suppose I do like to poke at the Clinton side because I see them as almost wholly responsible for bringing about the outcome they find to be so catastrophic. And I'm not saying they're wrong in thinking it is a catastrophic outcome, I just wish they'd spend some time looking honestly at the reasons it has come to pass. All I see is a doubling down on the kind of thought processes and behavior that has led to their disappointment.

 

With regard to your analogy, call it as you like, but it simply serves to highlight the emerging fact free trend. No problems with seeing both candidates as flawed, different conclusions when it comes to support - but that's another issue and been flogged to death.

 

As for the second paragraph, I get what you say, and to an extent even agree. I don't know how instrumental this was to Trump's victory, but obviously it was there and it played a part. The refusal to accept criticism, admit a fault, or engage in some introspection on that front is rather amazing. It also unnecessarily casts Trump's part in his victory as more meaningful than due.

[Jingthing]

30 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

It's nothing to do with being neutral, saying that is just another expression of "us" and "them" state of mind. Not sure how people can go on about "divisions" while preaching either with us or against us. And no, it is anything but convenient. Much easier to succumb to hate. And since this gets too personal let me end with an appropriate anecdote: at times, it feels that the effort involved with mending post election bridges between NY and TX branches of family is hopelessly depressing.

 

 

Good, because we clearly have nothing further to say to each other on this matter. I don't get neutrality on this and I don't get complacency in seeing a President trump as normal. From my POV, the pre-election and now the horrible result are really the American version of what did you do in the war Daddy turning points. I didn't do enough but yes I'm confident at least I wasn't neutral and was on the side of sanity and decency. Yes, I know, hyperbole to you again, so indeed really nothing more to say. 

[rice555]

16 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Good, because we clearly have nothing further to say to each other on this matter. I don't get neutrality on this and I don't get complacency in seeing a President trump as normal. From my POV, the pre-election and now the horrible result are really the American version of what did you do in the war Daddy turning points. I didn't do enough but yes I'm confident at least I wasn't neutral and was on the side of sanity and decency. Yes, I know, hyperbole to you again, so indeed really nothing more to say. 

What, you playing by DQ rules?

5555555555555555

rice555 

[Morch]

12 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Good, because we clearly have nothing further to say to each other on this matter. I don't get neutrality on this and I don't get complacency in seeing a President trump as normal. From my POV, the pre-election and now the horrible result are really the American version of what did you do in the war Daddy turning points. I didn't do enough but yes I'm confident at least I wasn't neutral and was on the side of sanity and decency. Yes, I know, hyperbole to you again, so indeed really nothing more to say. 

 

The point made, and again dodged, was that there are various ways of being against. In this case, against Trump. My way is different to yours. If it makes you feel better to see anyone not fully embracing your own narrative and rhetoric, be my guest. Whether this purist point of view and the purges it implies are conductive to bolstering opposition to Trump is questionable. Not unexpected, though, this is pretty much standard stuff when it comes to the way political extremes view their moderate counterparts. But hey...don't let me interrupt you going on about intolerance.

[Credo]

I suspect I will be opposing many of DT's policies, but I will try to prioritize them.   I am not going to be a hater and hate everything because it comes from DT.   He's going to have policies that are not good and he will likely have some that are good.   I'll oppose, actively, those that I am against.    

[Jingthing]

More about the cover.

http://www.advocate.com/media/2016/12/09/trumps-time-cover-not-normalization
 

Quote

 

Trump's Time Cover Is Not "Normalization"

Conway denied any such claims, but Time didn't. "His rhetoric had in fact opened up a new public square, where racists and mysogynists could boast of their views and claim themselves validated," the magazine wrote. "And to further enrage many Americans, Trump regularly peddled falsehoods, without offering any evidence, and then refused to back down from his claims."

 

 

 

[lannarebirth]

On 12/9/2016 at 6:10 AM, Jingthing said:

Good, because we clearly have nothing further to say to each other on this matter. I don't get neutrality on this and I don't get complacency in seeing a President trump as normal. From my POV, the pre-election and now the horrible result are really the American version of what did you do in the war Daddy turning points. I didn't do enough but yes I'm confident at least I wasn't neutral and was on the side of sanity and decency. Yes, I know, hyperbole to you again, so indeed really nothing more to say. 

 

I remember what you did in the war. When your party systematically undermined one candidate for another, subverting the electoral process, you didn't do anything. When serious flaws were brought to light about your preferred candidate you plugged your ears and went la,la,la, and attacked the accusers. You weren't the only one of course but it all took place in a very obvious way and the Wikileaks were merely a confirmation of what everyone already knew or suspected. 

Edited December 11, 2016 by lannarebirth

[selftaopath]

On 12/8/2016 at 9:08 PM, hugocnx said:

So he toke his refuge to executive orders. That is for tirants, not?

Bush had more executive orders than Obama.

[Boon Mee]

On 12/8/2016 at 7:00 AM, Ulysses G. said:

The United States was divided long before Trump. The last administration deserves plenty of the blame. However, Time Magazine is never going to admit that.  Despite the facts, the MSM blame the Republicans as per usual.

Time being one of the hard left publications out there will of course denigrate a Republican President.

[Ulysses G.]

4 hours ago, selftaopath said:

Bush had more executive orders than Obama.

 

Still blaming Bush. His executive orders were not unconstitutional.

Edited December 23, 2016 by Ulysses G.

[Silurian]

Indeed the divider-in-chief's campaign rhetoric is directly to blame for blatant hate speech being directed towards minorities. The clueless POTUS-elect has absolutely no remorse and no guilt for the vitriol he spewed forth on the campaign trail. He used whatever filth was required to get attention and now the children of the US are learning from this awful, awful man. The sooner this putrid stain is gone from office of the President the better.

 

The collateral damage after students' 'build a wall' chant goes viral

http://us.cnn.com/2016/12/28/health/build-a-wall-viral-video-collateral-damage-middle-school/index.html

 

[kevkev1888]

Following the deaths of both Debbie Reynolds and her daughter Carrie Fisher. Charlie Sheen tweets:

 

Dear God; 

 

Trump next, please! 
Trump next, please! 
Trump next, please! 
Trump next, please! 
Trump next, please! 
Trump next, please! 

 

A drug addict alcoholic with HIV wishing the President Elect dead. Sicko!

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 29, 2016 by kevkev1888